A city banned Pride flags on public property. Now they’re getting sued.

Two former members of the Human Relations Commission in Hamtramck, Michigan have filed a federal lawsuit against the city’s Pride flag ban, alleging it is unconstitutional.

The City Council unanimously voted in June in favor of banning Pride flags from flying on public property. The entire Hamtramck City Council is Muslim, as are about 50% of city residents. At the time, councilmembers argued that while LGBTQ+ people are welcome in the city, flying the Pride flag would disrespect the religious freedom of others.

Related:

School kicks trans teen out of high school musical because he wasn’t born a boy

The school district said the policy is needed to address the musical’s “mature adult themes.” But the student is fighting back.

The Los Angeles Blade reported that attorney Marc M. Susselman filed the lawsuit on behalf of Russ Gordon and Cathy Stackpoole, who were fired from the Human Relations Commission after they flew Pride flags on public property in defiance of the council’s new law.

Stay connected to your community

Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter.

Daily

Weekly

Good News

The suit claims the law banning the Pride flag violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and argues the plaintiffs did not break the law because “an unconstitutional Resolution is itself a violation of law, and a citizen who violates an unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, Resolution cannot be violating the law. Rather, the Councilmen who voted in favor of the unconstitutional Resolution violated the law by violating the Constitution.”

“It is unconstitutional for government to select what speech will be permitted, and what speech will be prohibited, based on the content or viewpoint of the message conveyed by the speech,” it also states.

The suit not only asks for the anti-LGBTQ+ law to be overturned but also for Gordon and Stackpoole to be reinstated to their positions on the Hamtramck Human Relations Commission.

Hamtramck Mayor Amer Ghalib told the Detroit Free Press that the lawsuit is “another unnecessary distraction by the former power structure that doesn’t like to see the city moving forward.”

“The neutrality resolution is legal and constitutional,” Ghalib said. “The city doesn’t discriminate, or give any preferential treatment to any group. The taxpayer government buildings or spaces belong to everyone and cannot be used by a specific group to promote a special interest group’s agenda. The city isn’t being selective on which flag it can fly, like it was the case with Shurtleff v. Boston, in which the Supreme Court ruled against the city’s selective enforcement. This is different: The city decided to keep government properties neutral, and no group would be allowed to fly any kind of flags other than what’s specified in the resolution.”

But the lawsuit argues the law does not maintain neutrality because certain flags are allowed, such as national flags and prisoner-of-war flags. While other types of flags are banned – like political, religious, and racial flags – the Pride flag was the primary motivation behind the law.

The law “is not content neutral, because it permits the display of the prisoner of war flag and nations’ flags which represent the international character of the city, but prohibits displaying all other flags which convey a different message,” the suit claims. “The Resolution therefore violates the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment and is unconstitutional.”

Since its passage, Pride flags on private property have been torn down and vandalized.